Double Dip When No One's Watching
Ever see the guy who tries to sneak his half-eaten chip into the onion dip when he thinks no one is watching? Disgusting, right? And not just because of the sores around his mouth. At best, it's poor form. At worst, it's repulsive. And it's no better when it happens in the law.
And sure enough, VanVoorhis' lawyer, somebody named Randazza, beat the rap, his motion to dismiss being granted. Unfortunately, the case being in Florida, there was no price to pay for bringing a SLAPP suit, other than the public humiliation of getting whupped.
The good thing about being a successful businessman suffering from butthurt, however, is that upon losing a case with a lot of people watching, you can always count on the attention span of your critics being far shorter than the pain you suffer. And as long as there's money for lawyers, there's hope.
Now that the video of Comins shooting dogs is more than three years old (21 in dog years, half a century in internet years), and all eyes are looking for new images to capture their angst and imagination, the patient litigant figures no one is watching. And so he's going for his double dip.
Christopher Comins has, once again, sued Matthew VanVoorhis for defamation.
When something new hits the interwebz, bloggers tend to be on it fast and furious. But every 12 seconds or so, something new hits the small screen, and it can be hard to look backward when there's so much to see in the other direction. New is fascinating and interesting. New is, well, new. Old is been there, done that. There are few things that can be said of someone on social media that is more thrillingly embraced than someone is "forward thinking," not that anyone has ever said that about me (at least without milk spewing out their nose).
But VanVoorhis finds himself with the gun pointed at his head once again, except this time he's got no outrageous new video to make the blawgosphere sit up and take notice. In the meantime, Comins is shoving his chip into the onion dip with abandon, figuring that we're too flighty, too "forward thinking," to bother with his going after a blogger for a second time after he got his butt kicked the first.
Marco Randazza still stands by VanVoorhis' side, and the complaint is made up of the same whiny, empty claims that routinely beg for sanctions in a state with a half-decent anti-SLAPP law. But Matthew VanVoorhis, a guy who wrote on his blog and was sucked into the vortex of the law by a shooter with a bank roll to his misery, now has to go through another lawsuit with a gun pointed at his head, while his online brethren are busy waiting for the next viral video.
I'm watching, Chris. I see you double dipping. It's disgusting.
When wealthy businessman Christopher Comins tried to shut poor blogger Matthew VanVoorhis down with a SLAPP suit the first time, everybody was watching.
So what does a shooter do when he's caught on video and properly castigated everywhere? He sues a blogger.
Matthew Frederick VanVoorhis has a blog called Public Intellectual, where he posted about Comins' dog-shooting. The title is Christopher Comins: Barbarian Hillbilly Dog-Assassin (w/Friends in High places). My guess is that Comins objected to being called a Hillbilly. I bet Hillbillies objected to being associated with Comins.
The post is harsh. Then again, trying to murder dogs, especially when the owner is screaming to stop and you're close enough to see the collar around their necks, deserves some harsh words. But Comins is a businessman. He's got both the wherewithal and motivation to make somebody pay for his getting caught.
And sure enough, VanVoorhis' lawyer, somebody named Randazza, beat the rap, his motion to dismiss being granted. Unfortunately, the case being in Florida, there was no price to pay for bringing a SLAPP suit, other than the public humiliation of getting whupped.
The good thing about being a successful businessman suffering from butthurt, however, is that upon losing a case with a lot of people watching, you can always count on the attention span of your critics being far shorter than the pain you suffer. And as long as there's money for lawyers, there's hope.
Now that the video of Comins shooting dogs is more than three years old (21 in dog years, half a century in internet years), and all eyes are looking for new images to capture their angst and imagination, the patient litigant figures no one is watching. And so he's going for his double dip.
Christopher Comins has, once again, sued Matthew VanVoorhis for defamation.
When something new hits the interwebz, bloggers tend to be on it fast and furious. But every 12 seconds or so, something new hits the small screen, and it can be hard to look backward when there's so much to see in the other direction. New is fascinating and interesting. New is, well, new. Old is been there, done that. There are few things that can be said of someone on social media that is more thrillingly embraced than someone is "forward thinking," not that anyone has ever said that about me (at least without milk spewing out their nose).
But VanVoorhis finds himself with the gun pointed at his head once again, except this time he's got no outrageous new video to make the blawgosphere sit up and take notice. In the meantime, Comins is shoving his chip into the onion dip with abandon, figuring that we're too flighty, too "forward thinking," to bother with his going after a blogger for a second time after he got his butt kicked the first.
Marco Randazza still stands by VanVoorhis' side, and the complaint is made up of the same whiny, empty claims that routinely beg for sanctions in a state with a half-decent anti-SLAPP law. But Matthew VanVoorhis, a guy who wrote on his blog and was sucked into the vortex of the law by a shooter with a bank roll to his misery, now has to go through another lawsuit with a gun pointed at his head, while his online brethren are busy waiting for the next viral video.
I'm watching, Chris. I see you double dipping. It's disgusting.
I'm confused. I see the same attorney signed both complaints. How does said attorney think he's getting this past res judicata dismissal? Or was the original suit dismissed without prejudice?
I have found a docket report online that indicates that final judgment did not occur until November 10, 2011, after the date of the new complaint. The source is unofficial; I'd link, but that's against the rules.
What am I missing here? Is there any way at all that the new complaint could be considered non-frivolous?
Reply to this
Excellent questions. Remember, this is happening in Florida, not the United States.
Reply to this
Hey! We really do have Rules of Civil Procedure here, and they're remarkably similar to the ones they use in other states and federal courts. Some of our judges have actually read them.
Reply to this
Florida--oh that legal system! Florida and SLAPP suit. Been there, got the T-shirt.
Reply to this